IN RE: Allison Coffeen MOHON (2026)

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the application for reinstatement pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.502 of Allison Coffeen Mohon, whose bar roster address is 106 Orchard Street, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42241. She was admitted to the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) on April 30, 2010, and her KBA roster number is 93468.

The KBA's Character and Fitness Committee (Committee) recommends that Mohon's application for reinstatement be conditionally approved. The Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) objects to Mohon's reinstatement.¹ For the reasons set forth fully below, we find that Mohon has met her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, and we adopt the Committee's recommendation that she be conditionally reinstated.

BACKGROUND

Mohon opened her own practice in 2011 and practiced as a solo practitioner until her suspension. On January 20, 2022, this Court suspended Mohon for 181 days, with 60 days to serve and the remainder probated for two years, subject to conditions that she reimburse the clients at issue; attend the Trust Account Management Program (TAMP); open and maintain an escrow account with a financial institution; provide quarterly reports to the OBC during probation; receive no new disciplinary charges during probation; and pay costs. Since her suspension, Mohon has maintained steady employment and donated significant time to charitable causes while raising her three children. At the time of the hearing, Mohon was employed as a delivery driver for Spark.

a. Prior Discipline

The procedural history leading to Mohon's suspension from the practice of law is set forth in Mohon v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 638 S.W.3d 417, 428-29 (Ky. 2022). In short, the KBA investigated Mohon following multiple client complaints lodged against her from August 2017 through mid-2018, when she attempted, unsuccessfully, to operate a solo law practice without support staff. After bringing charges against her based on those complaints, the KBA agreed to a proposed resolution with Mohon, presented it to the Court, and the Court accepted it.

In its January 20, 2022 Opinion and Order (“Order”), the Court suspended Mohon for 181 days, with 60 days to serve and the remainder probated for two years, subject to conditions that she reimburse the clients at issue; attend the TAMP; open and maintain an escrow account with a financial institution; provide quarterly reports to the OBC during probation; receive no new disciplinary charges during probation; and pay costs.

Although the Court's Order gave Mohon the opportunity to seek automatic reinstatement after 60 days, she did not do so. Mohon testified that her attorney failed to explain the process and requirements for automatic reinstatement. Because Mohon did not satisfy the requirements in a timely manner, the OBC objected to her automatic reinstatement and instead insisted that she seek reinstatement through Character and Fitness.

In February 2023, the KBA filed a Motion to Show Cause regarding the issuance of a charge against Mohon in another disciplinary case (22-DIS-0016) involving events that occurred before the Court's Order. That disciplinary case was resolved in July 2023 with a Private Admonition, conditioned on Mohon refunding $1,500 to the client, which she did. On June 15, 2023, the Court denied the motion, holding that the remaining 121-day probated portion of Mohon's suspension be imposed retroactively to April 1, 2022. It is undisputed that Mohon has now completed the requirements of the Court's January 2022 Order.

In February 2025, Mohon filed her Application for Reinstatement with the KBA. After completing its investigation on July 17, 2025, the OBC, Mohon, and a majority of the Committee members could not agree that Mohon had met her burden of clear and convincing evidence to be reinstated. As a result, a formal hearing was required under SCR 3.502(a). On September 19, 2025, the Committee issued its Notice of Formal Hearing, scheduling the evidentiary hearing for November 18, 2025. The hearing was held on that date. Following the evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer requested and received post-hearing memoranda.

CHARACTER AND FITNESS COMMITTEE

The Committee made the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation.

Mohon testified at the hearing and called two witnesses, Brittanie Bogard and Karen Putney. The OBC called no witnesses, although its investigator was available.²

Mohon testified that since her suspension, she has maintained steady employment, devoted significant time to charitable causes, and raised three children. Currently, she works as a delivery driver for Spark. As of the hearing, she had made about 500 deliveries and had a customer rating of 4.9 out of 5. She also testified that her employment with Spark has required her to become more organized and focused on meeting deadlines.

Mohon testified that she has ADHD, which she partially attributes to her prior disciplinary issues. Although she was receiving treatment for ADHD at the time, she has since taken more aggressive steps, studied ADHD, developed coping skills, and remained compliant with her provider's recommended course of treatment. Mohon also testified that she would welcome KYLAP oversight and monitoring related to her ADHD as a condition of her reinstatement.

Although Mohon practiced law since becoming a licensed attorney in 2010, the disciplinary issues that led to her suspension from the practice of law occurred during a concentrated period from about August 2017 through mid-2018. Mohon explained that until that time, she had shared space and staff with another attorney; once she became a true solo practitioner without even support staff, her law practice essentially fell apart because she could not manage the business aspects of operating a law practice while also rendering competent and diligent service to her clients. She acknowledged that she became too focused on generating new clients, with no safeguards in place to manage client deadlines or finances.

Mohon appears to fully appreciate the extent of her wrongdoing. As she put it, “the mask has basically fallen off.” Mohon takes life more seriously overall and understands the specific consequences of practicing law for people's lives. She acknowledged that she does not believe she should resume solo practice and that she should reenter the practice of law under mentoring and supervision. She understands the importance of having case management software in place, as well as trust account management.

Mohon's two witnesses did not materially strengthen Mohon's case beyond her own testimony. They primarily testified that Mohon appeared to understand and appreciate the wrongfulness of her prior conduct. Bogard also corroborated the extent of Mohon's community involvement.

Mohon presented signed statements from supporting attorneys and judges. The impact of these submissions was mixed. While the practitioners stated in writing that they support Mohon's return to the practice of law, they also told the OBC in interviews that, although they support her return in principle, they have reservations about her qualifications to practice law competently given her prior history.

Following the evidentiary hearing and post-hearing memoranda, the Committee found that under SCR 3.503, Mohon bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that she possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for readmission to the practice of law. The Committee evaluated whether Mohon satisfied each of the nine elements set forth in SCR 3.503 and found that she had.

Under Kentucky law, an attorney's suspension is not a permanent disability. In re May, 249 S.W.2d 798 (Ky. 1952). Our predecessor Court explained the principle:

We are not willing to say that no matter what a disbarred attorney's subsequent conduct may be; no matter how hard and successfully he has tried to live down his past and atone for his offense; no matter how complete his reformation—the door to restoration is forever sealed against him. Even wrongdoers convicted of crime are given another chance.

Tejeda v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 714 S.W.3d 364 (Ky. 2023) (quoting In re Stump, 272 Ky. 593, 114 S.W.2d 1094, 1097 (1938)). In Tejeda, this Court, in a 4-3 opinion, accepted Tejeda's application for reinstatement, with conditions, after a four-year suspension for misconduct that led to his guilty plea to reckless homicide stemming from a fatal alcohol-related automobile accident.

In his dissent opposing reinstatement because of Tejeda's lack of candor during the reinstatement process, Justice Nickell wrote that “the blameworthiness stems from Tejeda's avoidance of truth. An applicant's honesty is the ‘crux of a reinstatement proceeding’ because a lack of candor may indicate ‘a lack of rehabilitation.’ ” Id. at 372 (Nickell, J., dissenting) (citing Skaggs v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 954 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Ky. 1997)).

Here, based on our review of the record and considering the totality of the circumstances approach set forth in Greene v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 904 S.W.2d 233, 235 (Ky. 1995), we find Mohon to be worthy of reinstatement and accept the Committee's recommendations as to each factor set forth in SCR 3.503.

Under SCR 3.503, Mohon bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that she possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for readmission to the practice of law. We address each element below:

(a) The nature of the misconduct for which Mohon was suspended

As we previously stated, the nature of Mohon's conduct leading to her suspension was “severe.” Mohon, 638 S.W.3d at 428-29. However, balancing that against Mohon's lack of disciplinary history and other mitigating factors, the Court accepted the parties’ proposal that Mohon return quickly and automatically to the practice of law—a valuable opportunity that Mohon says she lost because of communication problems with her previous legal counsel. Id.

For reasons like those expressed by the Court, the Committee also finds that Mohon's conduct, while very concerning, should not create an insurmountable obstacle to practicing law again. The Committee particularly notes that Mohon's disciplinary issues arose during a concentrated period when she attempted to operate a law practice without support staff and other safeguards, a mistake Mohon vows never to repeat. It is also worth noting that during the concentrated period, Mohon had recently married and started a family.

(b) Whether Mohon has presented clear and convincing evidence that she has complied with every term of the order of suspension

There is no dispute that Mohon has fulfilled the terms of the Court's January 2022 Order.

(c) Whether Mohon has presented clear and convincing evidence that her conduct while under suspension shows that she is worthy of the trust and confidence of the public

While under suspension, Mohon has maintained steady employment, donated significant time to charitable causes, and raised three children. The OBC presented no evidence that, during this period, Mohon engaged in unlawful or otherwise concerning conduct that would call into question her character and fitness. The OBC criticizes some of Mohon's employment decisions, namely her decision not to follow through on her plan to become a teacher and her decision that she could not handle a DoorDash delivery job. The Committee does not believe these decisions materially detract from Mohon's character; arguably, they illustrate that her judgment has improved by declining responsibilities she believes she cannot handle. The Committee finds that Mohon's conduct while under suspension provides clear and convincing evidence that she is worthy of the public's trust and confidence. The Court agrees.

(d) Whether Mohon has presented clear and convincing evidence that she possesses sufficient professional capabilities to serve the public as a lawyer

The OBC objects most strongly to Mohon's reinstatement application on this element. Indeed, this element also gives the Committee its most significant reservations about Mohon's request for reinstatement. Everyone, including Mohon herself, appears to agree that Mohon should not operate a solo law practice upon re-entry to the practice of law. However, there are many other circumstances in which an attorney may practice law, and the Committee does not conclude that Mohon lacks the professional capabilities to serve as a lawyer in an appropriate context suitable for her.

Mohon practiced law for several years without any disciplinary conduct. Her disciplinary issues from August 2017 through mid-2018 appear to have arisen from two clearly identifiable reasons: (1) an intense, sudden overload of work in 2017 for which Mohon lacked operational safeguards to handle it; and (2) a personal lack of appreciation for the seriousness of a lawyer's duties to her clients. The Committee believes Mohon has presented clear and convincing evidence that these problems will not again negatively impact her practice of law. Mohon credibly and thoroughly explained that she understands these issues, has educated herself on client and trust management, has matured personally, will not take on such a level of work again in a law practice, and will re-enter the practice of law only under supervision. For these reasons, the Committee is satisfied that Mohon has the professional capabilities to practice law again, under supervision.

Additionally, one of Mohon's references indicated that he believed her best opportunity was in a position with supervision and freedom from having to manage her own employees and business. The reference stated, “If some of us in Hopkinsville can keep close tabs on her, we will be able to make her an asset to the legal community.”

However, Mohon has not yet identified a mentor or supervisor who is available and willing to supervise her in the practice of law. Thus, as a practical matter, it is unclear whether Mohon can propose a suitable supervision arrangement. But, because Mohon has met her burden, the Committee believes she should have the opportunity to present such a proposed arrangement for approval. The Court agrees.

(e) Whether Mohon has presented clear and convincing evidence that she presently exhibits good moral character

The OBC does not dispute Mohon's showing on this factor. The Committee's finding on this factor is closely related to its finding above in (c). Because Mohon is gainfully employed while raising her children and contributing to her community, and has committed no misconduct since her suspension, the Committee finds that Mohon has met her burden on this factor.

(f) Whether Mohon has presented clear and convincing evidence that she appreciates the wrongfulness of her prior professional misconduct, including her sense of wrongdoing and conception of the serious nature of the misconduct, and has rehabilitated herself from past derelictions

As discussed above, Mohon testified that she fully understands and appreciates the wrongfulness of her prior misconduct. Importantly, Mohon also demonstrated to the Committee that she understands the precise reasons for her failings in the practice of law, which will enable her to avoid these same failings if she resumes practice. The Committee finds that Mohon has satisfied this factor. However, the OBC strongly disagrees. Specifically, the OBC points out that one of Mohon's character witnesses testified that Mohon was a grown woman in 2022 with the mentality of a 15-year-old. The OBC found that to be damning evidence that she is not ready to return to the practice of law.

Additionally, the OBC found particularly troubling the fact that Mohon admitted during the hearing that other clients were in a similar situation but did not file a complaint. Mohon testified that she repaid many people who aren't involved in these proceedings, perhaps as many as five. She never self-reported what may have been additional violations, as required by the rules of ethics.

By her own admission, her misconduct was widespread. Reimbursing clients does not absolve her of the violations she has incurred and failed to disclose. OBC believes this admission calls into question Mohon's current standing and whether, if she gets her license back, the OBC will start receiving new complaints about prior misconduct. However, at this point, OBC's concern is mere speculation.

Also, of particular concern for the OBC was Mohon's admission that she defaulted on a vehicle loan around the time of her suspension and had recently begun paying off debts shortly before she submitted her reinstatement application. Mohon was unaware of two retail credit cards until she ran a credit report in anticipation of reinstatement. She did not dispute that she owed the debts associated with the two credit cards. OBC believes that being unaware of debts connects directly to the mismanagement of personal funds and, ultimately, to the mismanagement of client funds.

However, Mohon testified that she fully understands and appreciates the wrongfulness of her prior misconduct. Importantly, Mohon also demonstrated to the Committee that she understands the precise reasons for her failings in the practice of law, which will enable her to avoid these same failings if she resumes practice. The Committee finds that Mohon has satisfied this factor. The Court agrees.

(g) Mohon's previous and subsequent conduct and attitude toward the courts and the practice

The OBC does not dispute Mohon's showing on this factor. As the Court noted in its January 2022 Order, Mohon fully engaged in the disciplinary process and expressed regret for her wrongdoing. She has interacted respectfully in this reinstatement proceeding. The Committee does not construe Mohon's failure to timely satisfy the terms of the Court's January 2022 Order as a disregard for the Court or the disciplinary process, given Mohon's testimony that the failure resulted from communication problems with her previous legal counsel. The Committee finds that Mohon has satisfied this factor. The Court agrees.

(h) The time elapsed since Mohon's suspension

Mohon has borne her burden on this element, as she has now been effectively suspended for over four years, during which time she has committed no misconduct. The four-year period is particularly notable given the original intent of the parties’ joint proposal, adopted by the Court, which would have allowed automatic reinstatement within 60 days if Mohon had satisfied the terms of the Order at that time. This four-year period is also particularly notable given this Court's decision in Tejeda, supra.

(i) Mohon's candor in the reinstatement process, including whether she has timely and completely provided required information and supplemented her application for reinstatement throughout the process

The OBC does not dispute Mohon's showing on this factor. With able assistance from her counsel, Mohon has provided timely and complete information throughout this reinstatement process.

The Committee recommends that Mohon's application for reinstatement be approved and that she be reinstated to the practice of law in Kentucky, subject to the following conditions: (1) entry into an agreement with KYLAP regarding treatment of her ADHD; (2) submission to two (2) years of supervision by a licensed Kentucky lawyer on terms suitable to the Court; and (3) submission of a proposed supervision plan to the Committee within 60 days of the Court's Order of reinstatement.

Based on the foregoing facts and recommendations, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Allison Mohon is reinstated to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, conditioned upon:

(1) Mohon shall enter into an agreement with KYLAP for treatment of her ADHD;

(2) Mohon shall submit to two years of supervision by a licensed Kentucky lawyer, on terms suitable to the Court;

(3) Mohon shall submit a proposed supervision plan to the Committee within 60 days of the Court's Order of reinstatement; and

(4) Mohon shall pay all costs incurred by the KBA in connection with this proceeding, in the amount of $4,949.11, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.

/s/ Debra Hembree Lambert

CHIEF JUSTICE

FOOTNOTES

1.   OBC contends Mohon has failed to meet her burden on three elements (SCR 3.503(1)(c), 3.503(1)(d), and 3.503(1)(f)); and notes that failure to meet any of the nine criteria set forth therein shall constitute a sufficient basis for denying the application. SCR 3.503(2).

2.   The hearing was conducted via ZOOM and OBC's Deputy Counsel announced that its investigator was in the waiting room. Following the close of Mohon's proof, Deputy Counsel announced it would not call any witnesses.

All sitting. Lambert, C.J.; Conley, Goodwine, Keller, Nickell, and Thompson, JJ., concur. Bisig, J., dissents.